"Promises, Promises" reviews -

[virgil blessing2]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 1:27am

hey folks. we are catching "P.P." in 4 weeks. anyone catch the opening preview today, or seeing it in the next week or so? if so, please post your reviews here or in new threads. i'd love to hear the word of mouth.

anyone see it today?

[KMOTTERBELT]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 3:59am

I Loved it. The set was great, The Costumes were great. The cheoro was brilliant!!! Sean Hayes is great, incredibly funny. Kristen does a great job. Its not the best show for her. i wanted some money notes from her and you dont get them but she is funny and acts well in the show. Overall a great production. I hope to see it again in a few months after it has been running and gets everything completely solid.

[singtopher]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 8:18am

You can read a lot of reviews in the other thread.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1013499&dt=62&boardid=1

[virgil blessing2]

Posted: 3/29/10 at 12:42pm

thanks to you both! we cannot wait! oh, did they keep it mid- late 60's, or try to gear toward a more early 60's slant, ala MAD MEN?

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 12:45pm

In keeping with the obvious MAD MEN craze, the setting has been moved to 1962. The original Broadway production took place in 1968.

[virgil blessing2]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 1:04pm

thanks brody. i was afraid of that...what with the original film being from 1960 and latest MAD MEN craze being all the rage. a bit of a conflict give that the score has a rather mid to late 60's sound.

let me ask you please, with the revival's orchestrations, did they re-tool it and take out the 'late 60's sound' we all know, and re-flavor it with more of an early 60's sound? it still doesn't sound as 1968 groovy-licious as the original yet is set in 1962, does it?

whichever appraoch they took instrumentally, does it work?

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 1:58pm

The original 1968 orchestrations are being used as well as the concept of the female pit singers. All the songs have their original 1968 orchestrations. Some of the original underscore music (heard during scenes) have embelishments in them but remain faithful to the ones used in the original 1968 Broadway production.

Just the wig, costume and set design have been modified to resemble 1962. The original 1968 Broadway production's design was 'present day' for 1968.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 2:09pm

I would actually ask for the title of the thread to change, as it will be confusing when official reviews come out.

[virgil blessing2]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 5:03pm

brody, in your opinion, did the 1962 production design and the 1968 orchestrations (which of course sound like "late 60's groovy" in sections such as 'grapes of roth', 'turkey lurkey', etc., and are not exactly indicative of "1962 cocktail chic") meld together well onstage?

or did you feel that the '62 look and '68 sound were a bit awkward together?

[Marquise]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 6:01pm

That famous "Bacharach sound" wasn't dominant in 1962. 1965 maybe, but not 1962. The change in year makes no sense and the more I read and hear about this revival the more disappointed I get.

I hated the way Kristin Chenoweth sang "Knowing When to Leave" at that first preview. Kerry O'Malley did a much better job in the 1997 Encores production and Jill O'Hara was just unequalled...not even Betty Buckley touched O'Hara's version IMO.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/30/10 at 6:08pm

Nothing beats O'Hara's version of that song. O'Malley's was very good though. Chenoweth's was definitely a bit disappointing at the first preview, not a enough feeling. Hopefully she gets better.

[fixer]

Posted: 3/31/10 at 11:54am

Weak to say the very least.

Kristin C is a sexless robot in a role that calls for her to demonstrate intimacy, passion, love & heartbreak to the point of suicide. Clearly, she has not the first idea of how to do this. This is not a Chenoweth personal appearance; it's a dramatic performance, and she's as distant from her co-cast members as the next theater down the street.

The score, which has always been weak, MUST be amplified by passionate performances in order to bring it fully out, and the three principal performers are sadly and deeply miscast.

Sean Hayes can't fake passion. It's supposed to be "man-woman" love, and he's doing the "brother-sister" version.

He is the new Robert Morse...or perhaps Jerry Lewis (a role that he's already played). He's forced to carry the show on his own along with a couple of secondary members of the cast..... He's fun to watch, and you're glad that he's performing....but...

Tony Goldwyn, the actor that portrays their boss, Mr. Sheldrake, doesn't have the vocal chops to sing with the local church choir.

Going back through online videos, you can easily find performances by people who did it right. Obviously, these performers have not watched them.

Of course, they got the mandatory standing ovation....how....unsophisticated...

The curtain applause is the real indicator of audience evaluation, and there's one standout performer: Katie Finneran as Marge MacDougall, the intoxicated lady in the bar. She had a costume malfunction in the middle of some choreography where her high heel caught on the hem of her skirt....and pulled the correction off perfectly. The audience loved the "fix"...a real pro. The applause DOUBLED when she came out for her bow. Let's see more of her.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/31/10 at 12:09pm

It's patently clear that Chenoweth is woefully miscast. Just because she can approximate the musical comedy demands -- she's a highly talented, accomplished professional -- doesn't mean this "stretch" for her serves the Simon/Bachrach material. Or the audience. Ironically, her much-debated "opposite", Ms. Menzel would have the closer vocal match, and frankly, Lea Michell -- Menzel Jr. -- is closer to the age and sensibilities of this 20 year old naif-waif. Chenoweth, with her tank-like sunniness, effective in the right roles, is being asked to tone down the very qualities that people want to see her embody. What a bizarre choice. And yeah, she doesn't play sexuality very well, or even romance. If you think about it, none of her roles to date have demanded that of her.

[fflagg]

Posted: 3/31/10 at 12:50pm

As good as Marge may be it should have been Catherine O'Hara, a star and a real character actress.

Kristin is as vulnerable as a blowtorch and as for Sean. . . he's too old, too fey, and too [fill in the blank].

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/31/10 at 12:56pm

Miss O'Hara would make us root for Marge and Chuck. Seriously. In fact, I think therein lies a problem with the story. By 2010 standards, Marge is a lot more fun and engaging. No doormat, she.

Posted: 3/31/10 at 12:57pm

Burt Bacharach had his first hits in the late 50's and probably had written a dozen or more top 10 hits by 1962.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/31/10 at 12:59pm

At this point, bring Marge back at the end to sing "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" It's about as relevant to the story as this 20 year old (!) waif warbling "A House Is Not a Home" in a story that takes place in Manhattan apartments.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 3/31/10 at 1:01pm

Marian Mercer was in her early thirties when she played Marge. Catherine O'Hara is in her mid fifties!

And you say Sean Hayes is too old at 40 to play the role, but Jerry Orbach was 34 when he originated the part.

I take it you're not a casting director in real life.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/1/10 at 12:55pm

The Other Board continues to raise questions about Chenoweth's suitability for the role. Curiously, the debate is more heated over there, more anti-Kristin's casting than pro.

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/1/10 at 3:12pm

blaxx, I am with you. I was momentarily confused when I saw the thread title as I knew the show hadn't officially opened yet and no reviews were out.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/1/10 at 6:56pm

Not only that, it will make a search difficult in the future.

I hope the OP does change the thread title.

[fflagg]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 1:16am

Saw the show tonight.

Absolutely awful.

The audience was filled with girls and their moms who knew Sean as "Jack" and giggled at all that he did.

Many people at intermission were like "you wanna stay or go?"

Sean is not acting; he is doing "stuff" as though he were on The Carol Burnett Show and his singing is not so hot; Kristin looks emaciated [and a bit botoxed] and is miscast--vulnerable she is not. The "new" songs to the score add nothing and are mere solo spots for her to sing. Katie F. is funny but she looks and sounds like Catherine O'Hara.

Best performance: Tony Goldwyn, subdued and full of pathos.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 1:20am

Saw the show tonight.

Absolutely loved it.

The audience seemed to be having a great time and couldn't stop talking about how much they were loving it during intermission.

We had an absolute blast and I can't wait to go back and see it again!

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 1:45am

Burt Bacharach had his first hits in the late 50's and probably had written a dozen or more top 10 hits by 1962.

True. But their famous sound that is so evidently clear in the score for PROMISES didn't come to full bloom until the mid-60's and reached it's peak by the late 60's not the late 50s or early '60s.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 2:03am

"The score, which has always been weak, MUST be amplified by passionate performances in order to bring it fully out, and the three principal performers are sadly and deeply miscast."

I have to disagree completely with this statement. If that's a weak score, I'm a heterosexual Republican.